• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Laurinaitis vs. Grant (Starting LB Discussion)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
EdDantes22 said:
...Also, I don't like your argument about Weis not attacking Lauranaitis. Why, if Weis was trying to attack the weakest player on the field, wouldn't he have attacked Lauranaitis? There was absolutely no reason to think, as untested as he certainly was at that point, that he was anything other than the weakest defensive player on the field for tOSU. Did Weis sneak in and scout him in practice? He clearly knew nothing about the kid, so to say he avoided attacking him because he didn't think of him as a weakness is kind of warped logic.
Click to expand...

If you're going to attack a defense, who do you attack? The weakest known link. If there's an unknown, you attack that first to see if it breaks. You don't think that Weis knew that Carpenter, a possible first-round draft pick) was going to not play, let alone start, and as such a true freshman with one full game's experience would fill in? You can bet your house that the ND staff watched every play that Lauiraitis was at LB during the season (not only did he play the entire Micigan game, but also had sub time in several games). He he shown any type of weakness, they would've been all over him every time he set foot on the field. Yet, they didn't, which clearly implies that saw no weakness with his play. If one of the most potent offenses in college football, led by an NFL offensive coordinator with 3 SB rings, doesn't attack a true freshman with minimal game experience, they sure must think the kid is pretty damn good.

Hey, if Grant is good enough to bump him out of the starting job, then we know we have ourselves a superb LB. But, as of now, Larry's an unknown quanitity while Laurinaitis isn't/
 
Upvote 0
One of Walker's TDs was run right at Laurinaitis, who overpursued and was knocked out of the play. That sounds like attacking a weakness to me. Yes I realize on another play hawk was out of position. I'm just blowing up your claim that the great genius from ND thought Laurinaitis was without weakness and never attacked him. It's also tough to gameplan to attack one particular player when he is only on the field occasionally.

Laurinaitis was consistent. He wasn't great, he wasn't bad. As such, he has some very useful experience in addition to his year in the system.

After that, we know nothing. There were a lot of people that started in 04 based on experience that did not last, so it's clearly a possibility.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
If you're going to attack a defense, who do you attack? The weakest known link. If there's an unknown, you attack that first to see if it breaks. You don't think that Weis knew that Carpenter, a possible first-round draft pick) was going to not play, let alone start, and as such a true freshman with one full game's experience would fill in? You can bet your house that the ND staff watched every play that Lauiraitis was at LB during the season (not only did he play the entire Micigan game, but also had sub time in several games). He he shown any type of weakness, they would've been all over him every time he set foot on the field. Yet, they didn't, which clearly implies that saw no weakness with his play. If one of the most potent offenses in college football, led by an NFL offensive coordinator with 3 SB rings, doesn't attack a true freshman with minimal game experience, they sure must think the kid is pretty damn good.

Hey, if Grant is good enough to bump him out of the starting job, then we know we have ourselves a superb LB. But, as of now, Larry's an unknown quanitity while Laurinaitis isn't/
Click to expand...

No weakness in his play? I take it all back. If the kid's flawless in every way, I can join Mili 100% in declaring him the starter. Good thing Weis & Co. knew how to pick their battles and focused on inferior talent like A.J. Hawk, Anthony Schlegel and the rest of our much more experienced but tragically flawed defense.

Seriously though, maybe Weis just isn't as smart as everyone seemed to think. I don't care what you think of Lauranaitis's play as a true freshman, but if Weis didn't "attack" him in the Fiesta Bowl I think it speaks more to Weis's stupidity than it does the stunning piece of football perfection, Animal Jr.
 
Upvote 0
Does anybody know where the 4.4 and 4.45 times that are posted for Grant come from? I just wonder how fast this guy really is on a football field. Does he have enough speed to be a saftey, or at least be a type of Cie Grant LBer? I really like the speed factor.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
If you're going to attack a defense, who do you attack? The weakest known link. If there's an unknown, you attack that first to see if it breaks. You don't think that Weis knew that Carpenter, a possible first-round draft pick) was going to not play, let alone start, and as such a true freshman with one full game's experience would fill in?
Click to expand...

Good points, but isn't that Kudla's side? They've gotta get through Kuds to get to Animal II, and we all saw Kudla's run-stopping and lateral movement ability earlier in the season. What a great defense we had.
 
Upvote 0
JonathanXC said:
Does anybody know where the 4.4 and 4.45 times that are posted for Grant come from? I just wonder how fast this guy really is on a football field. Does he have enough speed to be a saftey, or at least be a type of Cie Grant LBer? I really like the speed factor.
Click to expand...
Ummm...can somebody put this back in the recruiting thread?
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
One of Walker's TDs was run right at Laurinaitis, who overpursued and was knocked out of the play. That sounds like attacking a weakness to me. Yes I realize on another play hawk was out of position. I'm just blowing up your claim that the great genius from ND thought Laurinaitis was without weakness and never attacked him. It's also tough to gameplan to attack one particular player when he is only on the field occasionally.
Click to expand...

That was their first TD, and I've already told you before, Josh, that the play was not run at Laurinaitis (they did run to his side, but not at him...I'll make a clip if I have to). And Hawk wasn't out of position...he was blocked downfield by an OL. ND blocked out everyone on that play...no one came close to laying a hand on Walker. To use that play as justification that Laurinaitis was schooled is way off target.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
That was their first TD, and I've already told you before, Josh, that the play was not run at Laurinaitis (they did run to his side, but not at him...I'll make a clip if I have to). And Hawk wasn't out of position...he was blocked downfield by an OL. ND blocked out everyone on that play...no one came close to laying a hand on Walker. To use that play as justification that Laurinaitis was schooled is way off target.
Click to expand...

Not to discount your overall theory, which is a good one, but Animal II did have an open shot at the RB and whiffed early in the game. He tackled air.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
That was their first TD, and I've already told you before, Josh, that the play was not run at Laurinaitis (they did run to his side, but not at him...I'll make a clip if I have to). And Hawk wasn't out of position...he was blocked downfield by an OL. ND blocked out everyone on that play...no one came close to laying a hand on Walker. To use that play as justification that Laurinaitis was schooled is way off target.
Click to expand...
That's not what we are using the play for. It's to show that they weren't avoiding him. Nobody is saying he got schooled...you are just the one that is saying that Notre Dame never ran at him and couldn't find any weaknesses in his game.
 
Upvote 0
EdDantes22 said:
No weakness in his play? I take it all back. If the kid's flawless in every way, I can join Mili 100% in declaring him the starter. Good thing Weis & Co. knew how to pick their battles and focused on inferior talent like A.J. Hawk, Anthony Schlegel and the rest of our much more experienced but tragically flawed defense.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're consistent in your M.O. in resorting to sarcasm when proven wrong...time and time and time again. You know, maybe you should actually watch some of the games once in a while. ND spread the defense wide and their only success running was up the middle and off-tackle when our two LB played back (not to mention a coupld of bad missed tackled by our secondary), to take advantage of our nickle coverage. We were willing to give up some yardage on the ground in order to lock down Samardzija and Stovall (which we did). You think that Walker would've rushed for 5.6 ypc and almost 100 yards if we were in our normal 4-3-4 defense? ND didn't focus on Hawk or Schlegel but rather took what we gave them.
 
Upvote 0
JonathanXC said:
That's not what we are using the play for. It's to show that they weren't avoiding him. Nobody is saying he got schooled...you are just the one that is saying that Notre Dame never ran at him and couldn't find any weaknesses in his game.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that ND was "avoiding" him? You folks imply he had little impact because he wasn't in the game much and hint that it was because we couldn't afford to have him on the field (you may not say that, but that's what you're implying). My point is that we were in the nickle not to keep a potential liability in a true freshman LB off the field, but rather to contain ND's passing attack. And when Laurinaitis was in, he more than held his own.
 
Upvote 0
In my view (which is definitely through glasses) the likeliest scenario is that a JUCO "stud" gets as much playing time as he can, (and earns). He is only here for 2 years of playing time, so if he shows the goods in practice I expect we shall see a lot of Mr. Grant. As for Lil' Animal - he played well and handled himself with distinction in 2 of the highest profile games of last season. Though you did not hear his number called often (particularly in the Fiesta Bowl) that is both a positive (he was playing exactly in the manner asked, disciplined and keeping to his assignment) and a negative - little in the tackle tally column on which to hang his hat. The former in my opinion outweighs the latter.

Thus, what I expect to see is more of Larry Grant than merely Special Teams, and much less than an outright ouster of Lil' Animal.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top